Live data from Hacker News

Why Jewish History Is So Hard to Write

newyorker.com

51–60 of 165 posts

Re: Why Jewish History Is So Hard to Write

#51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, this fact this makes me proud to be a Jew. (A happy Passover to all whom it may concern). As a young boy my father used to take me to the Pergamon museum in Berlin - one major exhibit is the Babylonian street of processions (it dates to the neo-Babylonian empire) He used to say - here you see our heritage, we were around the show when Berlin (and all the other great capitals of the world) were still a swamp.

I was born Jewish and was pretty religious for most of my life, but even when I was religious I never understood why we should be proud of this, or why this is a good thing in and of itself. I would be really interested if you could explain more your way of thinking about it, because to me when my father explains that we should be proud of having the same meal our ancestors did Xthousand years ago I don't feel impres…

Its a personal thing, I am not in a position to persuade anybody. I think that our present is explained by the context of the past, and that you can't understand the present without looking at the past. Now the past is a complex thing that can't be reduced to some simple formula, I still believe that you can still learn out of it, because human nature didn't change to much throughout the ages. Our reality may be quite different from what it used to be, but we are not essentially different from our ancestors, so we can still learn from them (hope that helps). Our experience is similar to the experience of our ancestors, we are part of the same process - it may be distant, but it is still relevant (in my opinion), the accumulated experience of past generations is of great value (because we tend to repeat the mistakes of the past)

I know that I did repeat the same statement several times with variations, but it is as far as I can get.

Also: If something prevailed throughout time, against all odds, then that's pretty impressive to me.

Re: Why Jewish History Is So Hard to Write

#52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is little in the way of ethnicity. Ashkenazi Jews are an ethnicity, Jews in general, aren't. They even spoke different languages before Hebrew became a thing in early XX century, and many of them still do.

What a bizarre comment. Saying "Jews, in general, aren't an ethnicity" is almost an oxymoron - for it is precisely the identity shared between this group of people, that justifies the existence of words such as "Jews". There is an evident sense of shared identity between different populations of Jews, based on common history, culture, customs and traditions - this is the very definition of ethnicity, and this why we…

[deleted]

Re: Why Jewish History Is So Hard to Write

#53
post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The amount of blood that the eastern European ground soaked up during the course of these great migrations, and recurrent sectarian violence in the Balkans into the present day stands as a strong counterpoint.

> The amount of blood that the eastern European ground soaked up during the course of these great migrations Any source for that? I'm pretty interested in the history of the Middle Ages and as such I've learned recently that some historians have even started to question the long-held believe that the famous Mongol invasion of 1241-1242 was that bloody. Yeah, they did ransack a couple of towns in Transylvania and pres…

It's difficult to peer into the internal history of the Eurasian steppe and its largely pre-literate past for the early periods. So we're largely forced to rely on the accounts of the literate peoples around the periphery, whether that be Greek, Roman, Byzantine, Persian, or Chinese who dealt with and recorded the results of incursions from these outside peoples from the heart of Eurasia. For whatever poorly-understood reason, peoples seem to have boiled out of either Scandinavia or Mongolia periodically, pushing along the adjacent tribes, who pushed on their neighbors, in something like a butterfly effect, until this knock-on effect pushed a tribe over the border into the territory of some settled people.

Invasion by the "Germans" is the explanation Caesar gives for the migration of the Helvetii; it's debatable how accurate he was being, and how motivated to find political justification for his actions, but something induced them to pack up and move for greener pastures. A similar explanation may be found for the movement south through the Balkans and into Asia Minor of the Celtic tribes that became the Galatians. There is perhaps more evidence of this effect in the series of great migrations towards the end of the Roman empire, where the Franks, Burgundians, Vandals, and Goths all were forced westward in front of the Huns and Alans, who were themselves pushed westward by other steppe tribes of central Asia, perhaps ultimately terminating in the Xiongnu and their conflicts with Han China. There appears to be another wave of migration some hundreds of years later, corresponding with the migration of the Slavs, Bulgars, Avars and others into eastern Europe and the Balkans, the expansion of the Rus, the rise of the various central Asian Turkic khaganates, and the expansion of Tang China. Then there is of course the expedition of Batu and Subotai, in which atrocity and total war was a favored tactic, and only a succession crisis after the death of Ogodei Khan spared the rest of Europe. Then there is German colonization under the aegis of the Teutonic Knights, the crumbling of the Byzantine Empire under assault from the Turks on the one hand and the Venetians on the other, incessant warfare as the Ottomans expanded and contracted northwards through the Balkans, culminating in the early 20th century "Baltic Question" tinderbox as that empire fell apart and led to hundreds of millions of deaths throughout eastern Europe and atrocity on a scale to rival Genghis.

It's a history of blood and sword; not perhaps categorically different than the history of most places, but amplified by virtue of being the crossroads of so many moving peoples.

Re: Why Jewish History Is So Hard to Write

#54

I've always been idly curious as to what happened in Israel (as in the geographic area) between, say, 35 A.D. and 1948. It seems, though, as if everybody who might have some insight there also has an agenda that makes any concrete information they might have to share indecipherable.

Mostly 1,400 years of Muslim rule besides a short period of Catholic rule during the crusades.

Re: Why Jewish History Is So Hard to Write

#55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look up the definition of ethnicity. I think you mean "race."

no, I don't mean race. An ethnic group, or an ethnicity, is a category of people who identify with each other based on similarities such as common ancestry, language, society, culture or nation common ancestry - genes.

I would dispute the notion of common ancestry is synonymous with common transfer of genes. The former is about descent, within a system of kinship, that may or may not recognize within it's domain an actual realized transfer of genes on the one hand, and may include in it's domain instances when no such transfer might have occurred (adoption/cuckoldry/politically motivated claims of kinship/etc.etc.).

Re: Why Jewish History Is So Hard to Write

#57
post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's a similar quandary with Arabs, minus the shared religion of course. I'm Tunisian and I consider myself Arab, but many other Tunisians consider themselves (ethnically) Maghrebi and/or Amazigh. Tunisia and the remaining Maghrebi countries are part of the Arab League, though. I'm sure it's even more complicated for Tunisian Jews :P

Complicated in a good way, because so many Tunisians committed to building a country for all Tunisians. For Lybian Jews, it's not complicated at all.

Of course! I'm definitely proud of the heritage I share with my fellow Tunisians of Jewish faith.

Re: Why Jewish History Is So Hard to Write

#59
post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What a bizarre comment. Saying "Jews, in general, aren't an ethnicity" is almost an oxymoron - for it is precisely the identity shared between this group of people, that justifies the existence of words such as "Jews". There is an evident sense of shared identity between different populations of Jews, based on common history, culture, customs and traditions - this is the very definition of ethnicity, and this why we…

That's an interesting interpretation. I assume you mean as decendents of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? I had never considered Catholics or christianity an ethnic group. Because to me it implied shared genetic features.

[deleted]

Re: Why Jewish History Is So Hard to Write

#60
post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What a bizarre comment. Saying "Jews, in general, aren't an ethnicity" is almost an oxymoron - for it is precisely the identity shared between this group of people, that justifies the existence of words such as "Jews". There is an evident sense of shared identity between different populations of Jews, based on common history, culture, customs and traditions - this is the very definition of ethnicity, and this why we…

That's an interesting interpretation. I assume you mean as decendents of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? I had never considered Catholics or christianity an ethnic group. Because to me it implied shared genetic features.

You are confusing Judaism - the religion, with the Jewish people - an ethnorelegious group. Many modern Jews are atheists - they certainly don't believe in Judaism, yet nobody would doubt that they are Jewish, nor would they deny this themselves. Similarly - a Jew can become a christian or a muslim yet ethnically still remain a Jew. The same cannot be said about christians or muslims.
Post reply on HN